Churches and Taxes

[Zacha341]

I think that you're making a very absolute statement assuming that ALL churches do harm. That is the consensus of some and so I hear you. However, I think there are some [[I'm one of them) not too enthused by the false profit 'hucksters' where they occur OR the 'pot shops' on every corner!

Too bad Detroit folks don't take the false-profit strip mall hucksters with their pop-up churches as seriously as they try to do with the so-called "Pot Shops". The churches do more harm in the community than any pot shop could.

[belleislerunner]

Not going to church because of the "hypocrites" is like not going to the gym because of "out of shape" people.

PS - Thanks for the heads up on the Joel Osteen concert at Comerica Park on July 23. I had no idea he was coming to town. I don't agree with 100% of what he preaches - but his messages are always uplifting/encouraging and could be fun to attend from a motivational perspective.

[Zacha341]

A whole thread could be devoted to JW corruption and the argumentation resulting therein. Long hidden from the adherents, is now fully available with the internet. With lawsuits abounding. Thus, the closure of many Kingdom Halls, and a reduction of their numbers in general in the US. I did like that they always kept their properties well maintained.

so how do you reach someone who converted to JW via marriage and at this point is fairly embedded in the culture? A female friend gets annoying when she goes on and on about their stuff.. she hasn't started going door-to-door yet..

[Zacha341]

Well stated. It boils down to the lens from which you view. For some there's no church worthy to attend and it's all a waste of time. The concern of, and warning against hypocrisy within and outside of the church is referenced within the Bible itself. It's a subject not UN-familiar among Christians. Worthy of being on the watch out for.

Not going to church because of the "hypocrites" is like not going to the gym because of "out of shape" people.

[Zacha341]

Yep. If Christian churches are taxed the same should apply to Mosques.

They should all be taxed, just as businesses and residences should. I have argued this with a friend, who happens to be Christian, for years. Recently he partially conceded, saying: "Mosques should not be included." He has no idea how illogical or hypocritical that appears to those who do not share his superstitions. Nice guy, despite his irrational statement.

[Zacha341]

I'm not surprised that Osteen pulls a large, broad-spectrum mega crowd. Doctrinally, he's a bit Christian 'LIGHT'. Rarely references scripture, Osteen's broad approach is mostly self-motivation, which has its pluses -- but not too deep. And for certain nothing so-called 'controversial' per se from what I have seen the times I've watched on television. His father was somewhat different.

This post has me wondering how many fools show for the upcoming Joel Osteen rally in Detroit. Perhaps we could have a lottery, where the poster who guesses the announced attendance wins a prize.

[Zacha341]

Umm, yeah that's a point!

...On the other hand the corner churches are inadvertent preservationists. Many of Detroit's bank branches and other corner buildings have been saved from the wrecking ball by the very group that is being discussed in this thread.

[Hypestyles]

From the Detroit News:

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opi...ment/86119166/

When Reuben Sheares took the pulpit at Trinity United Church of Christ on the South Side of Chicago, the pews before him were nearly empty. The historic, and now infamous, Afrocentric church’s members were drawn to more rebellious religion in the wake of Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination. They became disillusioned with the notion that one could be black and Christian.
Sheares had none of that. Trinity’s new motto, picked up and amplified by his successor Jeremiah Wright, would be: “unashamedly black and unapologetically Christian.” It spawned new growth in a church that, under Wright’s leadership, would become a center of social activism.
James Williams said he’s no Jeremiah Wright, but he wants to bring a version of that motto to the Motor City. “I start with ‘unapologetically Christian,’ ” Williams told me, “because I fear the church is being marginalized.” Williams, who with his wife Kelli established Spirit & Truth Christian Ministries in Detroit, worries that Christians are increasingly shut out of the public square.
He points to a time he was invited to pray before a City Council meeting, but was asked not to mention the name of Jesus. Williams refused and hasn’t been back. That might be a small example of government overreach, but see the Little Sisters of the Poor for more on that.
“Christians shouldn’t be afraid to sanctify their work,” Williams said. “Co-workers shouldn’t be surprised to find out you go to church on Sundays.”
Work, or lack thereof, is where Williams’ preaching hits home for many in his flock, and where “unashamedly black” comes in. “People come to church broken, and if I want to get through to their souls,” Williams said, “I can’t afford to ignore their suffering.”
But the resurrection of Detroit’s impoverished communities will begin only when its people are more unapologetic about faith than politics.
nhahn@detroitnews.com
Twitter: @NGHahn3

[G-DDT]

It has nothing to do with false prophets or hatred. The issue is subsidizing religious beliefs, practices, buildings and infrastructure with taxpayer dollars, and the separation of church and state.

Yet, the digressive issue was that a caller brought up to Thom the hate rhetoric spouted by a "Christian" leader, and she posited the more balanced argument [[as I would agree) that any church that runs counter to it's teachings by openly advocating racism, discrimination, hatred, or violence is not living up to an objective standard common for most faiths or at the very least, the common good of society in general [[as far as society deems ethics in a general sense-as nebulous and shifting as that can be). She suggested that such a church should lose it's tax-exempt status [[Thom is for taxing churches, but not Monasteries). Thom was also fair to mention that not all religions act as monolithically as one would presume [[Baptist, Methodist, and most of all, Pentecostal being the most schismatic in nature).

I went into depth with the Green v.....hearings that did indeed spark the formation of the Religious Right. I did this not just as a very informative history lesson to get a better understanding of how things happened in the last 38 years and what were the real motivations, but also as a statement that there were indeed some regulatory measures [[to some effective degree-that is, to say, effective enough to mark the bigoted hotheads for who they were) justly put into effect that governed the standard of the relation between taxes and churches [[and schools, etc.).

It can only be defined within the margins of racial discrimination, but I wish any church leader that spouted open violent hatred-be it Randal Terry https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Randall_Terry, Fred Phelps, or Rousas John Rushdoony would lose their tax exempt status [[seeing as the Golden Rule is common to so many faiths, I guess the same tax exemption yank can apply for any synagogue or mosque that advocates bombing or genocide, as well.)

My brother has been insisting for quite a while that groups like the Moral Majority, Christian Coalition, and Religious Right are defunct and dissolved. I'm not so easily placated. They just take on whatever new form best suits-not their religious ideologies-but their political ones. I caught a PBS report on religion and while most theologians don't have their head up their butt to quite clearly see Trump for what he is [[a violent and unstable bully who wants to gamble with our future as one put it, but a clear and calmer tone was set by this Southern Baptisthttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Lppmnq4d5w), you got guys like these folks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_...edom_Coalitionor this odd one http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conten...-unnatural-sex[[and I'd watch it with these New Apostolic Reformationists here!) with a Dominionist attitude and with such whacked views on "God's will" as it applies to current events/disasters, that he may very well become the next Pat Robertson 2.0. Oh yeah, they support Trump big time.

[Zacha341]

Yep. Keep that 'Jesus' factor out, and your exempt status can continue. Some churches have a choice coming soon. I say ditch the tax exempt status.

From the Detroit News:

Williams told me, “because I fear the church is being marginalized.” Williams, who with his wife Kelli established Spirit & Truth Christian Ministries in Detroit, worries that Christians are increasingly shut out of the public square.

He points to a time he was invited to pray before a City Council meeting, but was asked not to mention the name of Jesus. Williams refused and hasn’t been back.

[Honky Tonk]

Yep. Keep that 'Jesus' factor out, and your exempt status can continue. Some churches have a choice coming soon. I say ditch the tax exempt status.

That'll just create a lot of empty storefront property.

[Zacha341]

Well, yeah that's a point. Churches, not bound by hyper-materialism that can stand in the day, will do so.

If your ministry owns private jets and million dollar properties and what not that too may and up 'empty'.

That'll just create a lot of empty storefront property.

[Hermod]

Reading the above, it would appear that for sheer nastiness, bigotry, and desire to control the lives of others, that the new militant atheists whose panties get into a wad every time "God" or "Jesus" gets mentioned is worse than the most fundamentalist Christian sect.

[Bobl]

Reading the above, it would appear that for sheer nastiness, bigotry, and desire to control the lives of others, that the new militant atheists whose panties get into a wad every time "God" or "Jesus" gets mentioned is worse than the most fundamentalist Christian sect.

To whom would it appear this way? Few non believers I know wish to push their beliefs on to the government or the citizens, and they do not ask for a tax break for their beliefs. They simply wish to keep church and state separate. Many religious folks, though, ask for the subsidies while attempting to push their agenda on others.

[bust]

Freedom of religion and freedom from religion are both equally important to me. They are both pillars upon which our country was formed. ...Even if we haven't been perfect about implementing the principles. We can do better.

First, let's support everyone's right to follow whatever religious belief system they choose, without discrimination. Including at the border. Including when applying for a green card or citizenship. Including when applying for a job. Any job. And when applying for a license. Any license. Historically we've done a relatively good job of this, but we've lost considerable ground recently. I don't have to tell you where that's coming from.

Second, let's support everyone's right to live free of restraints imposed by someone else's religious beliefs. We've done a relatively good job of this too, compared to most nations, but we're much weaker here. We still have states with blue laws. We still have states that have curtailed women's reproductive freedom rights to conform to religious beliefs. We still have states that continue to impose a religious definition of marriage. Until only recently our legal sexual activities adhered to religious conventions. We have at least one city park with restrictions on attire based on a religious definition of propriety. We have state funds going to schools that include religious doctrine in the curriculum, and even to schools that segregate girls from boys in adherence to religious beliefs.

Regarding the tax issue, I support the idea of exempting charitable and non-profit educational organizations from property taxes. I do not believe places of worship are inherently charitable or educational organizations. And I do not believe most are truly non-profit.

If a religious organization runs a shelter, a soup kitchen, or any other legitimate non-profit charity, I propose it should be exempt from paying property taxes on that portion of their property dedicated to the charitable function. But it should pay taxes on their church, temple, mosque, or assembly hall. And on the residences of the clergy, their convention center, and their retreat. And their shelter, soup kitchen, or other charitable entity should not include religious instruction as part of its mission -- officially or unofficially. It is all too easy to cite examples that illustrate how advancing a religion is neither a charitable nor an educational activity. If you think your own religion is pure, just look at some other.

So please worship what you want / whom you want, how you want. But it is our duty to practice our worship in a way that respects each others' rights. It is our equal right to be a non-believer. Our right to worship must not interfere with anyone else's right to choose not to believe, or to worship something else. ...Just like any one else's right not to believe should never interfere with our right to be a believer. And no one should expect state support for practicing their personal beliefs. That goes for buddhism, atheism, pentacostalism, gnosticism, sikhism, catholocism, satanism, hinduism, agnosticism, mormonism, judaism, presbyterianism, animism, or any other -ism. It is a proper function of state to endorse and support charity, not religion.

Live free. Let others live freely.

Just my two cents, and I hope I haven't offended anybody.

[Bobl]

Bust, yours is a thoughtful, well written opinion. It is difficult for me to imagine any reasonable person taking offense. There are blurred lines between the charitable functions and the buildings. It is hoped that they can be resolved by the courts. Too many partisan pressures are thrust upon the legislative and presidential branches.

[Jimaz]

[erikd]

Freedom of religion and freedom from religion are both equally important to me. They are both pillars upon which our country was formed. ...Even if we haven't been perfect about implementing the principles. We can do better.

First, let's support everyone's right to follow whatever religious belief system they choose, without discrimination. Including at the border. Including when applying for a green card or citizenship. Including when applying for a job. Any job. And when applying for a license. Any license. Historically we've done a relatively good job of this, but we've lost considerable ground recently. I don't have to tell you where that's coming from.

Second, let's support everyone's right to live free of restraints imposed by someone else's religious beliefs. We've done a relatively good job of this too, compared to most nations, but we're much weaker here. We still have states with blue laws. We still have states that have curtailed women's reproductive freedom rights to conform to religious beliefs. We still have states that continue to impose a religious definition of marriage. Until only recently our legal sexual activities adhered to religious conventions. We have at least one city park with restrictions on attire based on a religious definition of propriety. We have state funds going to schools that include religious doctrine in the curriculum, and even to schools that segregate girls from boys in adherence to religious beliefs.

Regarding the tax issue, I support the idea of exempting charitable and non-profit educational organizations from property taxes. I do not believe places of worship are inherently charitable or educational organizations. And I do not believe most are truly non-profit.

If a religious organization runs a shelter, a soup kitchen, or any other legitimate non-profit charity, I propose it should be exempt from paying property taxes on that portion of their property dedicated to the charitable function. But it should pay taxes on their church, temple, mosque, or assembly hall. And on the residences of the clergy, their convention center, and their retreat. And their shelter, soup kitchen, or other charitable entity should not include religious instruction as part of its mission -- officially or unofficially. It is all too easy to cite examples that illustrate how advancing a religion is neither a charitable nor an educational activity. If you think your own religion is pure, just look at some other.

So please worship what you want / whom you want, how you want. But it is our duty to practice our worship in a way that respects each others' rights. It is our equal right to be a non-believer. Our right to worship must not interfere with anyone else's right to choose not to believe, or to worship something else. ...Just like any one else's right not to believe should never interfere with our right to be a believer. And no one should expect state support for practicing their personal beliefs. That goes for buddhism, atheism, pentacostalism, gnosticism, sikhism, catholocism, satanism, hinduism, agnosticism, mormonism, judaism, presbyterianism, animism, or any other -ism. It is a proper function of state to endorse and support charity, not religion.

Live free. Let others live freely.

Just my two cents, and I hope I haven't offended anybody.

Excellent post

[Wesley Mouch]

Freedom of religion and freedom from religion are both equally important to me. They are both pillars upon which our country was formed. ...Even if we haven't been perfect about implementing the principles. We can do better.

...And no one should expect state support for practicing their personal beliefs. That goes for buddhism, atheism, pentacostalism, gnosticism, sikhism, catholocism, satanism, hinduism, agnosticism, mormonism, judaism, presbyterianism, animism, or any other -ism. It is a proper function of state to endorse and support charity, not religion.

Live free. Let others live freely.

Just my two cents, and I hope I haven't offended anybody.

I can't even imagine what you said that could be considered offensive.

You suggest that we should support charity vs. religion. I take a broader look at what is charity. For many, charity is a function of religion. Their church builds their community, we hope. And that community, at its best, supports and builds our society. For example, the Catholic Church, for all its failings, has certainly 'produced' more charity than most non-profits. And that charity is created starting inside the church services themselves. The two things are tied together.

The larger issue I have with your slicing and dicing is whether we should really be in the business of using tax policy to support our social policy at all. But we are. And as long as we are, you're right that we should be looking at whether the institution supports society.

I believe mosques and churches in all their imperfect incarnations build our communities. We need more social institutions, not less.

Before taxing churches, we should first pass a local, state, and federal law elimination all discretionary property tax exemptions. If everyone should pay taxes, no municipalities should be in the game of giving exemptions to anyone who promises to bring future jobs, that may or may not ever manifest.

Until then, let non-profit churches and mosques be exempt. They are a force for good in our society.

[Bobl]

"Religion began when the first charlatan met the first fool." Voltaire. Agree or disagree, but why should either the charlatan or the fool be subsidized?

[G-DDT]

"Religion began when the first charlatan met the first fool." Voltaire. Agree or disagree, but why should either the charlatan or the fool be subsidized?

Voltaire was an elitist racist that had conflicting views on slavery. Yet, we are told he issued in "enlightenment" from the "free thinking" crowd. http://oodegr.co/english/atheismos/diafwt_ratsism.htm

I'm, chalking that up to ignorance there that you quoted him, and if not, then it isn't wise to use guys like him [[or Henry Ford) to hold a higher morale ground over religion.

I find less and less "heroes" [[be they beloved liberal ones-Burroughs, Lewis Carol, Sanger, or Jung and much, much more from the conservative side) appealing as I do more and more research.

Yet, if one wants a quote, it's one of the few ones I like from a fictional character from a series that only has a few shining points to it:

"Personally, I've never had much time for heroes."
-Professor Dumbledore

[Bobl]

The question was why subsidize them. You pointed out Voltaire's conflicted views on slavery. Are you suggesting that the major religions have not been inconsistent in their views and practices toward slavery?

[Wesley Mouch]

The question was why subsidize them. You pointed out Voltaire's conflicted views on slavery. Are you suggesting that the major religions have not been inconsistent in their views and practices toward slavery?

Whether mosques/churches/synagogues [[MCS) and their organized parents have or have not passed any particular litmus test in the past is somewhat off point.

The question is whether we as a society should give MCS's tax breaks.

I'd suggest that we should not give a blanket exemption on the MCS designation, but judge them on their IRS status -- as imperfect as that may be. If they pass the IRS test, then they should be given a better tax rate so as to encourage social energies in favor of social improvement.

[Zacha341]

^^^ Yes, but do we trust the IRS to provide a legitimate test, fair and across the board equal?

[G-DDT]

I see a lot of excuses to slam on religion on this thread here.

When it comes to any organization, I give them 200 years to clean up their act [[as far as race relations go, the clock still needs a good 140 years to run out for the Mormons to be clear in my eyes, and it hasn't even begun with the KKK.).

It may be my personal formula, but I do this for the consistent sake for instances like when anybody wants to rail on and dismiss how stupid it is to bring up slavery and all the subsequent civil rights abuses this country has taken part throughout history as "being in the past, let's get over it"; yet, the same persons thinking like that will also then cite abuses the "churches" did back in the dark ages with the crusades, inquisitions, and colonial impositions on native lands that happened in periods looong before America's slavery/civil rights abuses occurred. See the contradiction? [[I saw it a lot in good ol' "we're not racist/but we are, but at least we don't need God" Boston)

On any given topic, one can find a church or religious institution that supported or on the other hand, was a harsh critic of such a matter to stack the cards. We can slam on churches that supported slavery, but do we forget that many abolitionists were religious?-for example this Cincinnati Presbyterian Pastor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonath...[[abolitionist) who was strongly against slavery and secret societies [[as was his son-once again, I can't stress how good Randall Balmer's "Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism" is).

The same could be said for topics like Eugenics. You had idiots who were religious who supported it, but the Catholics were [[and still are) quite vehemently against it [[as demonstrated in Edwin Black's "War Against the Weak" [[also another good read).

Many could also say the Catholics defended the Nazis, but keep in mind guys like Coughlin who openly did were threatened with excommunication if they carried as such. This is also not to lose sight of the efforts of the celebrated Schindler or even that of the Schwarze Kapelle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarze_Kapellenetwork that worked with guys like Josef Muller and the Vatican to try and take down the Nazi regime [["Operation Mincemeat" by Ben Macintyre and "Bodyguard of Lies" by Anthony Cave Brown are very well researched books that highlight the efforts of the Schwarze Kapelle, as well as one personality that goes overlooked on Wikipedia, the man https://frted.wordpress.com/2012/01/...e-nazi-regime/ who willingly approved the Mincemat hoax as truth to turn the course of the war.) from the inside. Let us also not forget some of the names on this long list on Wikipedia who were Catholics who assisted Jews during the Holocaust.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescue..._the_Holocaust